Justin Auciello: The New Wave Planner

A win for urban planning: Supermarkets potentially on their way to New Jersey cities

Walk through the streets of Newark, Jersey City, Camden, Paterson, Atlantic City, or even a smaller city like New Brunswick, and look for a supermarket. Surely, you will find an abundance of markets, but how about the modern, well-stocked supermarkets—where you can get nutritious food at fair prices—that are ubiquitous in the suburbs?

Rare. Your search will likely be a failure.

The reasons? Plenty.

Businesses rely on revenue generation, and the spenders are likely to be found in the suburbs, where shoppers can park, grab a cart, and stock that cart with an abundance of fresh foods. From the pure economic standpoint, those with cars are likely to spend more money than their walking/biking counterparts, since there is more cargo space in which to transport the goods.

The suburbs are also ground zero for supermarkets because in New Jersey, that is where the money resides. It would be a poor business decision to open and upkeep a supermarket in an area where incomes are low.

Other concerns, whether mere perception or not, include higher insurance premiums and a likelihood of criminal activity.

We cannot blame supermarket companies for their lack of presence in urban areas. After all, it’s a business, and scare resources must be allotted where the spenders live.

However, we can blame all levels of government for not scheming up some inducements to lure supermarket chains into our cities.

Want to change existing land uses in our cities?

Provide the incentive.

Outlay grants and tax abatements; work with, rather than fight, developers with solid proposals; and fast track applications that will benefit our urban areas.

The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) is long-standing policy, with the goal of pulling development potential out of the suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas and pushing it into the urban areas, where there is existing infrastructure and redevelopment is necessary. And, just recently, I wrote that the New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009, which is an omnibus bill aimed at generating development activity in urban areas, is completely consistent with long-term smart growth and economic development goals.

How do supermarkets fit in with the SDRP and the New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009? Just like why it is rare to find a supermarket in an urban area, there are plenty of reasons why they are needed in our cities.

The most important reason is access to healthy food options. With obesity and its concomitant health issues, it is imperative that city dwellers have the option of purchasing nutritious foods. I wrote about this need in a May 27 post, in which I cited a University of Alberta study that found that there is a direct linkage between land use and health problems.

The linkage is clear, according to Kim Raine, the lead author of the study:

When we reviewed the evidence we found, for example, that lower-income neighbourhoods were more likely to have greater access to sources of high-calorie foods, such as fast-food outlets, and lower access to supermarkets or other stores stocking healthy foods,” explained Raine. The report also found that a lower socio-economic status - which involves education level, income and employment - was often associated with increased obesity among both adults and children. “Lower personal income affects the affordability of food,” Raine said, “and that has been shown to have the most consistent influence on what people eat.

Therefore, logic dictates, the poorer you are in a city, the more likely that you will consume unhealthy foods and not have access to stores with nutritious food options.

What can be done from the land use perspective?

Recently, the New York City Department of City Planning, noting the dearth of healthy food options in economically depressed sections of the Five Boroughs, outlined a zoning strategy that removes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) controls on ground floor tenant space rented out to grocery stores.

In the same May 27 post, I wrote that the strategy “is an enormous financial benefit to landlords and developers,” as well as a “public health benefit,” since “granting zoning breaks to attract grocery stores is a huge (and obvious) step in combating against the daily junk food assault.” Moreover, there’s an economic development incentive, because grocery stores would not only benefit the existing residents, but they would also serve as a catalyst for a migration to the neighborhood and potentially new development.

Across the Hudson River in New Jersey, a nascent public-private partnership initiative is seeking to lure supermarket companies into urban areas, though low-interest loans funded by a seven million dollar contribution from the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), four million dollars from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA), and a seven million dollar investment from TRF, an investment group, according to a July 22, 2009 article in the Press of Atlantic City.

In Atlantic City, city officials are mulling over “tax abatements as a financial incentive for A&P,” and the CRDA “may offer A&P a mortgage abatement of up to $100,000,” said the article.

Some more noteworthy points from the article:

Supermarkets generate jobs, serve as a catalyst for economic development and provide access to food at affordable prices, said Odis Jones, director of urban development for the Economic Development Authority.

Donald Hinkle-Brown, president of lending and community investment at TRF, said New Jersey will be the second state behind Pennsylvania to have such a supermarket program. TRF has leveraged $30 million in state funding from Pennsylvania for $116 million of total investment for 70 grocery stores in the Keystone State.

As someone who is concerned about access to healthy food options (especially in urban areas, since they are surefire economic development generators), beyond the May 27 post, I’ve written about the need to save funding for the “Jersey Fresh” program, as well as the spike in urban farming.

I’m a firm believer that by locating ample grocery stores in our urban areas through government inducements, residents will be healthier and our cities will be more vibrant and suitable for residential development—both goals of the SDRP.

Although more information is needed to assess the NJ public-private partnership initiative and its potential impact on our cities, on its face, it’s innovative, sensible, and much-needed, especially since it meshes well with the SDRP and the New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009.

Backyard chicken coops? Urban farming? There’s a silver lining to the recession.

Don’t be alarmed if you start noticing a sudden influx of “victory gardens” or new feathered residents in your urban neighborhood. It’s all just a great consequence of the current economic downturn.

Even prior to the near economic apocalypse last fall, Americans were already in the process of going green, rallying around practices like eating organically and locally produced food, purchasing environmentally friendly products, and even composing.

Is this the resurgence of the hippie?

Perhaps, according to New York Magazine, in which a June 21, 2009 feature, cleverly entitled “Back to the Garden,” is framed by this statement:

The hippies at Woodstock seem anachronistic, but look around. More and more city dwellers today are scrutinizing their food sources, buying eco-products, and composting their leftovers—they just wash their hair a little more often.

And why not?

While some may criticize the green movement as mere marketing, the benefits are clear, notwithstanding the incorrect perception that environmentally friendly living is expensive living.

I’ve always viewed the green movement as “going back to the basics,” meaning that not only will doing so benefit my health, but also the costs are not prohibitive. I hesitate to call my living practices acts of pure frugality, but my lifestyle actually results in spending less, since I mostly eat the food that is found along the perimeter of supermarkets and tend to ignore unhealthy options and unnecessary non-food products.

So, with people struggling across the county, the green movement may be acquiring new followers out of necessity, and those same people are looking to eat the staples that are found along the supermarket perimeter, or perhaps food right in their backyard. As promoted by First Lady Michelle Obama earlier this year, victory gardens are popping up everywhere (including in my backyard), but people are going much further.

Urban neighborhood and rooftop gardens, while somewhat recent trends as a reaction to needing some semblance of rural life in the city, as well as the virtuosity of providing healthy produce within the inner city where poorer residents may not have sufficient access to supermarkets, are now commonly known in the city vernacular.

But backyard chicken coops? They are certainly not ubiquitous city practices, but maybe they should be. In this recession, new rules are being generated everyday, so why not create some at the simplest level?

According to a June 15, 2009 article in the Los Angeles Times, backyard chicken rearing has been generating buzz throughout the county, in places like Madison, Wisconsin, Iowa City, Iowa, and even Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Baltimore, as people are searching for innovative ways to cut costs.

In Madison, the article states, “eight families in a three-block radius [of the article’s subjects that live in the heart of the city] and an estimated 150 families citywide [raise chickens].” And, according to the article, a well-known chicken supplier is getting slammed with orders:

Chick hatcheries say they can’t keep up with urban orders. Murray McMurray Hatchery, the world’s largest supplier of rare-breed chicks, has sold out of its “Meat and Egg Combo” collection of meat birds and laying hens. Customers hungry for a standard hen must wait: There’s a six-week backlog on orders.

Not only do the chickens serve an obvious public welfare purpose, from the sociological standpoint, they’re also helping to change the image of city life.

Take the existing urban gardens, mix in backyard chicken coops and some composting, and also add the farmer’s markets that are appearing with more frequency, and paradoxically, a city is not longer as wild as it once was. One can escape the hectic city life and reconnect back to nature in his/her backyard. In some instances, however, the “simpler times” argument doesn’t fly as easily.

Certainly, any type of livestock raising in a residential area requires reasonable zoning and health controls, protecting the integrity of neighborhoods and well-being of its residents, respectively. Common issues that must be considered include controlling wafting smells, ensuring proper sanitation, and regulating the design and placement of coops, in order to assuage fears of property devaluation in the neighborhood.

In Madison, WI, for example, households are permitted up to four hens, and a 25 foot separation is required between coops and neighbor’s homes. Reasonable.

Elsewhere, however, the slippery slope game is in full-force.

In New Haven, Connecticut, a recently proposed law permitting up to six hens per dwelling unit has drawn the ire of the community, with residents expressing fears of unsanitary conditions, avian flu, and the potential for more exotic forms of city farming should chicken roosts become legalized. Unreasonable.

In June, the Board of Aldermen’s Legislation Committee held a hearing on the matter—with testimony on the issue clocking in at a feather numbing three hours—with statements from residents, experts in the sustainability, public health, and medicine fields, and city planning officials.

The concerns ran the gamut, from fears of salmonella infection to just plain dirtiness associated with chicken rearing, and the proponents, backed by testimony from an immunologist, opined that the birds are good neighbors, as they eat bugs, will not spread avian flu, and promote a culture sustainability.

Due to open questions and outstanding debate regarding whether or not building permits should be required for chicken coops (since they’re not permitted now, residents must request a zoning variance), the Legislation Committee tabled the matter until this month.

The bottom line is that while many of the concerns are unfounded and backyard agriculture should be encouraged, to ensure equity throughout the remainder of the community, it should be regulated in a sensible fashion, just like in Madison, Wisconsin.

Let’s avoid the slippery slope arguments, allow our residents (many of whom are not as financially secure as they were just last year) to produce food in their backyards, and view it as a silver lining of this recession.

Is it the resurgence of the hippie? Woodstock Nation 2.0?

Maybe.

If it’s creating a more environmentally conscious culture, then why not?

—-

Sources:

Honeyman, Leonard J. “Feathers Fly; Chickens Still Caged” New Haven Independent 9 June 2009.

Huffstutter, P.J. “Backyard chickens on the rise, despite neighbors’ clucks” The Los Angeles Times 15 June 2009.

—-

Related posts:

NYC Planners: Zoning bonuses will spur healthy eating and economic development

Save “Jersey Fresh” as we know it

NYC PLANNERS: ZONING BONUSES WILL SPUR HEALTHY EATING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

I’ve always eaten healthy food—fruits, vegetables, lean meats, etc,—and I am extremely fortunate that my parents set me on this path, as I’m a firm believer that healthy eating habits should be established at a young age. For this, I am eternally grateful.

Unfortunately, even if they want to eat well, millions of people do not even have the opportunity to procure nutritious food, and this is a pressing public health concern, with recent spikes in the rates of diabetes, obesity, and the health complications that flow from both diseases.

This is especially a problem in dense urban areas (especially lower income neighborhoods), where many people do not own cars to travel to supermarkets and are reliant on local markets—which may be insufficient—for sustenance. Suburbanites do not necessarily have this problem, because access to a wide variety of food usually just requires a short car trip.

It is easy to assume that there is a direct linkage between land use and health problems, but has it been proven? Yes, according to a University of Alberta study.

Kim Raine, the lead author of the report, states that the study analyzed both “economic environments and build environments” to determine if a linkage exists. The underlying problem, according to Raine (as published in a March 14, 2008 Medical News Today release), is quite obvious:

When we reviewed the evidence we found, for example, that lower-income neighbourhoods were more likely to have greater access to sources of high-calorie foods, such as fast-food outlets, and lower access to supermarkets or other stores stocking healthy foods,” explained Raine. The report also found that a lower socio-economic status - which involves education level, income and employment - was often associated with increased obesity among both adults and children. “Lower personal income affects the affordability of food,” Raine said, “and that has been shown to have the most consistent influence on what people eat.

New York City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden recently said that “people are spending their entire food budget at Duane Reade, and that means soda and chips,” according to a May 20, 2009 article in The Architect’s Newspaper, entitled “Zoning Out Junk Food.”

Both Raine and Burden raise obvious urban living concerns: without easy access to healthy food, this is creating a recipe for an ongoing health crisis.

On the other hand, even if those in suburban neighborhoods eat well, if neighborhood walkability is an issue, as well as a dearth of recreational opportunities, both may help to breed obesity.

Some hallmarks of walkability are increased residential density, mixed-use zoning and street connectivity,” said co-author John Spence from the U of A’s Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation [in the March 14, 2008 Medical News Today release]. “Conversely, factors such as urban sprawl, low intersection density, low residential density and low land-use mix tend also to favour sedentary behaviour and lower physical activity levels and promote obesity.

Therefore, applying these findings, an inference can be made that residents in dense, highly walkable neighborhoods, with access to recreational facilities and well-stocked markets, will be the most fit.

But how can urban planners compel landlords to rent to grocery stores?

They can’t.

However, through creative zoning techniques, urban planners can create certain inducements that will not only benefit the landlords and developers, but also the greater community.

Create the bonus, and as the theory goes, they will come.

I’ve seen zoning bonuses applied to affordable housing construction (higher density allowed for more affordable units), but I’ve never heard of it used to induce grocery store construction.

In the war against junk food, it makes complete sense.

According to The Architect’s Newspaper article, Commissioner Burden’s office is on the front line of this war.

With a new zoning strategy, Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) controls—defined as the comparison between actual floor space and the lot size—will not apply to ground floor tenant space rented out to grocery stores.

From the business standpoint, this is an enormous financial benefit to landlords and developers, as it will allow the maxing out of a building’s floor area without necessitating a variance for FAR, thus spiking the ROIs for both the landlord and tenant. Of course, there’s also the public health benefit, since if developers take the bait and the tenants come, then the neighborhood would benefit from better food choices, beyond the soda and chips from Duane Reade.

The goal, according to Burden’s office, is to raise the current number of 15,000 square feet of grocery space per 10,000 people in a neighborhood to a “minimum of 30,000 square feet,” per The Architect’s Newspaper article. The targeted neighborhood include “diverse or high-growth areas like Washington Heights, Sunset Park, and Bushwick,” where access to quality food is lacking.

In addition, the city is taking additional steps to attract and retain supermarkets, and beyond just public health, this goes to long-term economic development strategies.

In a few strategically identified neighborhoods, such as Long Island City, Hunts Point, and St. George, “supermarkets are now permitted as-of-right, and the parking requirement is reduced for their use,” according to the City’s Planning Department. By creating these incentives, according to Burden’s office, locating supermarkets in undeserved areas “could keep up to $1 billion from seeping to suburban vendors as residents turn elsewhere to stock the pantry.”

I cannot think of a more straightforward “win-win” situation. In facing a nationwide health crisis, we need innovative thinking, and I’ve always felt that the most innovative strategies are those that are the most obvious. Granting zoning breaks to attract grocery stores is a huge (and obvious) step in combating against the daily junk food assault, as well as spurring economic development during tough times.

After all, we all need to eat, so why not eat well?

For some NYC residents, this may become a reality very soon.

Sources:

Appelbaum, Alec. “Zoning Out Junk Food.” The Architect’s Newspaper 20 May 2009.

“Rising Obesity Rates Influenced By Urban Planning.” Medical News Today 14 Mar 2008.

Save “Jersey Fresh” as we know it

The “Jersey Fresh” program is under attack.

Implemented in 1984 by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Jersey Fresh is a marketing program that promotes farm produced products from all reaches of the state, as well as farming related activities, such as agri-tourism events and attractions, and purchasing opportunities, including roadside markets, pick your own farms, and community farmers’ markets.

After all, New Jersey’s official nickname is The Garden State.

It is a successful program, as for 25 years, consumers and restaurant owners have known that high-quality produce is being grown within mere miles of their homes or establishments—as indicated by the ubiquitous “Jersey Fresh” labels—and available at their local supermarkets, farm stands, or community farmers’ markets.

The reach of this promotional mechanism may be drastically reduced if the $250,000 line item cut for the Jersey Fresh program survives in Governor Jon Corzine’s proposed budget—on top of recent reductions to the program. As reported in the Newark Star Ledger, according to Lynne Richmond, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Agriculture, marketing will continue, but enough appropriations may not remain for radio commercial airtime.

The ad nauseum political saying, “tough times require tough choices,” is a reality in New Jersey: during these recessionary times, faced with the responsibility of dealing with a sharp reduction in revenues, Gov. Corzine has no other option than to cut entirely or reduce significantly state funding for even the best programs. There are truly no winners, as every department, every program, and every citizen will be impacted.

I would argue, however, that funding for the Jersey Fresh program should be retained at current levels.

Why?

As noted above, the program is wide-reaching, and is welcomed by farmers, especially during tough economic times like now, as a tool to remind people to support local farming outfits and eating locally, a concept that has been receiving a lot of attention recently, most notably as a result of the Obama family’s garden at the White House.

The “locavore” movement, defined as eating food grown locally or within a tightly defined regional area, is a term that was coined by Jessica Prentice, the founder of Three Stone Hearth, a Community Supported Kitchen in Berkeley, California.

The reasoning for the movement is framed well within the “local food” entry on wikipedia.org:

Non-local food is often seen as a result of corporate management policies, heavy subsidies, poor animal welfare, lack of care for the environment, and poor working conditions. This limited interpretation is likely due to the fact that the organic movement is largely responsible for renewed public interest in local and regional markets. Those subscribing to this interpretation often insist on buying food directly from local family farms, through direct channels such as farmers’ markets, food cooperatives, and community-supported agriculture plans. For many, local food is interpreted as unprocessed foods to be transformed by the consumer or local shop rather than by the food industry. As such, local food (as opposed to global food) reduces or eliminates the costs of transport, processing, packaging, and advertising.

These are all noble reasons for eating locally, and it would be tough for almost anyone to sustain an argument against the promotion of local food. Another advantage relates to the planning process, land use, community and economic development, and real estate.

From a planning perspective, the locavore movement promotes community building, engagement, and interest. Eating locally helps our farmers earn a living, while also helping to ensure a balance of appropriate land uses in a state as disparate as New Jersey, with areas ranging from the most remote rural areas to extremely dense urban areas. Farmers’ markets bring communities together and provide a forum for interaction, thus in turn stimulating more involved and healthy citizens. Moreover, the markets create active public spaces in downtown areas throughout the week, which helps stimulate local interest in not only the products for sale, but also the local businesses that may be hurting for business and rely on pedestrian traffic, something that a weekly farmers’ market helps to generate.

A community poll taken in Madison Borough, New Jersey indicated that over 73% of respondents shop in downtown stores when they visit the weekly market. In addition, according to a presentation by Diane Eggert, Executive Director of the Farmers Market Federation of New York, the weekly Thursday night market in downtown Oswego, which has up to 40 vendors, prepared foods, and entertainment, has spurred 10 new shops and the transfer of other businesses to the downtown area to capitalize on an influx of foot traffic. Lastly, according to Ms. Eggert, the Ithaca market is directly responsible for keeping 35% of the vendors in business, as well as keeping 25% of vendors from reducing their operations.

It’s a tool for community, economic, and nutritional development.

Dozens of New Jersey’s suburban downtowns have seen a resurgence over the past few decades, and even through there are a bounty of reasons for this occurrence, the emergence of the farmers’ market parallels that of the suburban downtown. Clearly, both feed off each other, and farmers’ markets have helped to create a “buzz” in places like Highland Park, Kearny, Red Bank, Keyport, Highlands, Morristown, Metuchen, and Toms River, to name a few.

It’s simple: provide an outlet for fresh, locally grown food in a downtown area, and people will come and not only purchase some produce, but also perhaps meat at the local butcher or a shirt at the local boutique.

Eating locally translates directly into spending locally.

Perhaps the shock of a potential appropriations cut will force the Department of Agriculture to consider some innovative (read: free) marketing measures—beyond tapping the traditional media outlets that are costly—such as creating a Twitter account to selectively target New Jersey residents, or a Facebook “fan page” to reach a predominantly young demographic. There are dozens of social media methods through which the Jersey Fresh program can be marketed, and all should be explored.

In 2009, with a number of these same downtown areas under assault by this recession, with store closings and less revenue flowing into bars, restaurants, and shops, the relatively tiny amount of appropriations allotted for Jersey Fresh, a program that continually helps to remind us to support our local farmers and eat locally, should not be cut. We need people to flow into our communities to spend money, interact with each other, and indirectly, help to ensure a range of land uses statewide.